August 2011

In Hill v. San Jose Family Housing Partners (2011) __Cal.App.4th __, 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1101, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District held (1) that a written easement for a billboard was enforceable, even if the billboard was constructed in an illegal manner; and (2) the servient owners’ development that unreasonably interfered with the visibility of the billboard could be grounds for lost profits damages owed to the owners of the billboard.
Continue Reading Illegal Construction Of A Billboard Does Not Render Billboard Easement Unenforceable, Nor Does It Allow The Servient Owner To Block Visibility Of The Billboard

In Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill (August 5, 2011, H035519) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the city did not spot zone Arcadia’s property and did not violate Arcadia’s equal protection rights by placing a measure on the ballot which amended the city’s zoning code to prohibit extensive development on Arcadia’s property.
Continue Reading Growth Measure Survives Spot Zoning and Equal Protection Challenge in an “As Applied” Challenge

By now, most CEQA practitioners have faced the problem of what to do when a project opponent submits the Attorney General’s 18-page list of potential greenhouse gas mitigation measures, suggesting the measures might be appropriate for the project at issue. On June 30, 2011, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that the lead agency is not necessarily required to explain why each of the proposed measures is inappropriate for the specific project.
Continue Reading Lead Agencies Are Not Always Required to Explain Why Every Proposed Mitigation Measure is Infeasible